Mein Gott! I'm...German?!?!

More like what I am saying apparently flies over your head. It is not my fault if you don't understand logic and common sense. Your obtuseness is what already became really tedious since the early posts about this subject.

Now you're being silly, as well as insulting.

I would rather not communicate with you, so please don't address me any further.
 
The most reasonable view, given historical, archaeological and genetic facts, is that the ancient Scots were phenotypically little different than what is found today.

Are you saying what is now known as Scotland has experienced no changes in population since the 1st century?

Hardly!

Large-scale replacement is not necessary to alter the phenotypes of a single people like the Caledonians, whoever they were.

Scotland has experienced a great deal of immigration and change in the course of its history since the 1st century.

But one of us has taken this subject way too seriously and has made it into a preoccupation. I don't have time for such things.
 
Sir Rms2, what is your opinion on the Autosomal Test? Would that help narrow down my paternal ancestors, or is it only useful for finding close(in terms of time/generations)relatives?

I apologise for this noob question...:ashamed2:
 
Are you saying what is now known as Scotland has experienced no changes in population since the 1st century?

Hardly!

Large-scale replacement is not necessary to alter the phenotypes of a single people like the Caledonians, whoever they were.

Scotland has experienced a great deal of immigration and change in the course of its history since the 1st century.

But one of us has taken this subject way too seriously and has made it into a preoccupation. I don't have time for such things.

Where is the evidence that massive genetic changes occurred among the indigenous Scots from the first century on? Germanic, Nordic and Atlantic Facade influences certainly were already part of the Scottish genome at the time. Increased Nordic, Irish and English contributions (in the main) from, say, the 9th century onwards, simply enhanced elements that had long formed the Scottish genetic substrata.
 
Now you're being silly, as well as insulting.

I would rather not communicate with you, so please don't address me any further.

Now you are trying to be disingenuous and make it look as if your post wasn't the original offender. Please, don't insult our intelligence. And stop wasting our time.
 
Where is the evidence that massive genetic changes occurred among the indigenous Scots from the first century on? Germanic, Nordic and Atlantic Facade influences certainly were already part of the Scottish genome at the time. Increased Nordic, Irish and English contributions (in the main) from, say, the 9th century onwards, simply enhanced elements that had long formed the Scottish genetic substrata.

Any influx of Scandinavians or other "Germanics" would have helped only to increase the proportion of red hair among the supposedly already predominantly red-headed "Caledonians", since Tacitus also pretends that red hair is a predominant trait among "Germans". So the scenario is even worse for those who want to believe that Scots were predominantly red haired in the times of Tacitus. Not even further "Germanic" influence on Scots seems to have increased the proportion of red hair among them.
 
Tacitus - Celts and germanic

You all talk about Tacitus, and what he said about the look of the celts, germanic and so on.

But Tacitus isn�t a good source, when you want to know something about the look of the celts and germanic.

The most Red Haired people you find in Scotland and Ireland, but the celts are not typically Red Haired. Tacitus also said that all germanic had the same look "blue eyes" and "rutiliae, Red Hair". People say he mean blond hair.

But scientists say this couldn�t be. Yes, an not small part of germanic had blond hair and blue eyes. But germanic also had green, green-brown, brown, hazel or grey eyes. I think blond and blue eyes are more typical Nordic. But today we should differentiate germanic and nordic. The Nordic will often called northgermanic, but they are only linguistic germanics. The first germanic were pre celts (R1b, I2b) and in the present celtic countries the most people have brown hair, green or brown eyes, but also blue and blond hair. Look at Danish people, almost 50% have brown eyes or light eyes with brown pigments. In south sweden and south norway the people at least 21% have eyes with brown pigments.
 
Where is the evidence that massive genetic changes occurred among the indigenous Scots from the first century on? Germanic, Nordic and Atlantic Facade influences certainly were already part of the Scottish genome at the time. Increased Nordic, Irish and English contributions (in the main) from, say, the 9th century onwards, simply enhanced elements that had long formed the Scottish genetic substrata.

Why would the changes have to be "massive" to reduce the frequency of red hair between the 1st century and the 21st century? Red hair is a recessive trait.

What of the various peoples who have had a cumulative impact on the Scottish genetic landscape since the 1st century? Roman soldiers from all over the empire served in the outposts along Hadrian's Wall. What of the nearly 6,000 Sarmatians stationed in northern Britain? What of the Vikings, Normans, French, Flemish, Jews and Gypsies who are known to have settled in Scotland?

Nearly 2,000 years have passed since Tacitus wrote his description of the 1st century Caledonians. It is ridiculous to argue that because modern Scots have red hair at a frequency of about 5% (claimed as the result of a study I have not seen) that Tacitus must have been absolutely wrong and is therefore unreliable.

Tacitus' comments need to be taken at face value for what they were: anecdotal observations. One need not believe he was asserting that absolutely every last man, woman and child of the Caledonians had red hair and large limbs, but merely that red hair and large limbs were common enough traits among them to be worthy of note.

The conclusion that Tacitus draws of a connection to Germany is simply his own. Apparently red hair and large limbs were also common enough to be likewise worthy of note among the tribes of Germania (whether Germanic speaking or Celtic speaking is unclear) with which the Romans were most familiar.

The value of Tacitus' comments is that they reflect contemporary observations of some of the physical traits of 1st century people. It is not necessary to make inferences that take them to extremes.

This thread was begun by a guy of Scottish descent who apparently got some kind of results connecting him to Germanic people. He is L21+, a common enough value in Scotland but also in Germany, especially southwestern Germany. I posted the quote from Tacitus as an interesting historical observation and something worthy of consideration.

Why that should cause such a furor is beyond me.
 

This thread has been viewed 34517 times.

Back
Top